dodint wrote:Just wait. MD is a pain, it's the only state between NC and PA that doesn't allow concealed carry.

This wording is poor. I meant to say it's the only state that doesn't honor my NC CCW. I'm sure they have their own that you could apply for.

MD pretty much doesn't have a CCW program unless you are well connected. Business owners / doctors / security guards can get very restricted permits but that is about the extent of it. MD does not honor any other states permits.

NJ and RI are also horrible. I think "may issue" is unconstitutional because you shouldn't need to show cause as to why you want to carry a weapon. "Shall issue" usually means you meet x and y criteria you get your permit.

I tried to tell a liberal friend of mine about my adventure into getting a handgun. His response was "Sounds like what you have to do to get a driver's license. I don't see anything wrong with it."

WHAT!?

Owning a gun is a right I can exercise. Having a driver's license isn't. Owning a gun and being safe with it takes common sense (don't keep it loaded, don't point it at anyone, keep it stored in a safe place, etc.). Driving a car takes training and experience. The two aren't interchangeable IMO.

I don't disagree but I can own a gun and be safe with it without having any training as long as I exercise common sense. Driving a car is not the same thing. A person NEEDS some training to drive safely. I've had no firearms training and I can safely take my rifle to the range and practice my shooting without hurting myself or anyone else.

I guess my hang up is the the distinction between gun ownership and concealed carry. I'm guilty of often thinking of them as the same thing as for me in practice it is. Gun ownership should be as easy as possible. I think the barrier to entry for concealed carry should be higher, specifically a proficiency in weapons handling should have to be demonstrated. In NC we do 8hrs of training and have to hit a target to pass.

Car ownership isn't much different. Anyone can buy a car. But to get to use it in public you have to pay some fees and demonstrate proficiency through examination. So if your buddy is making a comparison between concealed carry and a drivers license I think it's a pretty good analogy.

I own two guns I have no idea how to use, but could in theory carry them concealed if I wanted. Kind of like how my wife can't drive stick.

dodint wrote:If I hadn't met you in 'real life' I'd assume you only had that one friend, and he was you.

I can see that...

We hang out regularly because we play open mic's and coffee shops so we need to practice. He lives 2 minutes from where I work so it makes it easy to see him. He's single and has no kids so he has plenty of free time. And...I love the guy.

I guess my hang up is the the distinction between gun ownership and concealed carry. I'm guilty of often thinking of them as the same thing as for me in practice it is. Gun ownership should be as easy as possible. I think the barrier to entry for concealed carry should be higher, specifically a proficiency in weapons handling should have to be demonstrated. In NC we do 8hrs of training and have to hit a target to pass.

Car ownership isn't much different. Anyone can buy a car. But to get to use it in public you have to pay some fees and demonstrate proficiency through examination. So if your buddy is making a comparison between concealed carry and a drivers license I think it's a pretty good analogy.

I own two guns I have no idea how to use, but could in theory carry them concealed if I wanted. Kind of like how my wife can't drive stick.

On the surface of it, Required training sounds good, but when you look at the data there are very very very very few accidents from CCW holders compared to the number of CCW holders out there. Mandating training is solving a problem that doesn't exist and potentially infringing on a constitutional right. Now look at cars, how many people are likely to be in a vehicle accident in their lifetime? I would guess the number is pretty high, maybe 70%. Now look at how many firearm owners have accidents with their firearms? I bet its way less than 1%. Also if you look at the stats of states that require vs don't require training (say PA vs NC) and there is no difference in firearm accidents, last I looked NC had a higher risk than PA, even though NC requires basic training and PA doesn't.

I'm not saying training, but an exam isn't too much to ask. I'd just like to know that the person with a pocket gun knows how to load it, point it where it should be pointed, fire it, and then put it back on safe (if applicable) and unload it. If they fail that, retest tomorrow after actually learning something. That can be done in much shorter time than a car inspection and shouldn't cost more than $5. Ranges would likely love it as it would mean every CCW person has to stop in at least once, so I don't think there would be a facility problem.

To me opposing something that simple undermines the cause by showing a disrespect for just how powerful and important handguns are. I'm okay with any dangerous thing having some barrier to entry. Be it cars, fireworks, guns, whatever.

Clark County's prosecutor said Tuesday he will dismiss a firearms-related charge against a Vancouver man who said he was merely taking Vice President Joe Biden's advice on how to defend his property from car prowlers. Instead, the man will be prosecuted for obstructing a police officer.

Jeffrey C. Barton, 53, made international news when he told journalists: "I did what Joe Biden told me to do. I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air."

That is a reference to the vice president's answer to a question in February 2013 about home defense. Biden responded that Americans don't need to own semiautomatic weapons because a couple blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders.

Politicians say a lot of stupid things, and the entries under 'Biden, Joe' are pretty rich. But I have to say, this one takes the cake. To me, this is only bested by the Congressman who was worried that Guam would tip over and capsize if too many people were put on it.

PensFanInDC wrote:A person NEEDS some training to drive safely. I've had no firearms training and I can safely take my rifle to the range and practice my shooting without hurting myself or anyone else.

Without wading into the merits of the argument your friend put forward, I always find this to be an absurd position to take. The notion that anyone can simply know how to operate a gun safely without some sort of training or instruction is nonsensical, and I don't want to be anywhere within 3,000 feet of someone wielding a firearm who believes this. There is nothing about the operation of a firearm that is instinctive other than pointing it. Breathing, sight picture, trigger pull, target background (is it safe to shoot?), all of this stuff is learned.

dodint wrote:I guess my hang up is the the distinction between gun ownership and concealed carry. I'm guilty of often thinking of them as the same thing as for me in practice it is. Gun ownership should be as easy as possible. I think the barrier to entry for concealed carry should be higher, specifically a proficiency in weapons handling should have to be demonstrated. In NC we do 8hrs of training and have to hit a target to pass.

Car ownership isn't much different. Anyone can buy a car. But to get to use it in public you have to pay some fees and demonstrate proficiency through examination. So if your buddy is making a comparison between concealed carry and a drivers license I think it's a pretty good analogy.

I would like there to be a national registration for CCW. If an eligible citizen wishes to sign up for the program, you submit to a background check (a real one, like you take for federal employment), fingerprinting, 2-week wait period, mandatory successful completion of training of higher-than-basic level, the whole nine yards. But in return, that federal CCW means universal acceptance in the 50 states, and it also allows you to buy more exotic stuff that is ordinarily prohibited in most jurisdictions. I would sign up for that in a heartbeat.

And you can also use it as a voter ID card. Bam. Two birds.

ffemtreed wrote:On the surface of it, Required training sounds good, but when you look at the data there are very very very very few accidents from CCW holders compared to the number of CCW holders out there. Mandating training is solving a problem that doesn't exist and potentially infringing on a constitutional right.

I would like to know if the data show whether or not CCW holders voluntarily take advanced training absent a legislative imperative. Because in my mind, someone who applies for a CCW is (generally) someone who takes their shooting seriously. They (again, generally) have a higher appreciation of the responsibility of what it means to be armed in public. That paints a picture of someone who at the very least spends a lot of time at the range improving their skills. But it also implies someone who is willing to improve those skills through professional instruction.

BTW, that "3,000 feet" line above is hyperbole. I'd never be able to go to the range if I actually believed that. In fact, part of the fun of going to a range is watching all the yobbos who are in imminent danger of losing a chunk of their support hand thumb because they have it over their shooting hand thumb.

And I am utterly amazed that Google Chrome already had the word 'yobbos' in its dictionary.

tifosi77 wrote:I would like to know if the data show whether or not CCW holders voluntarily take advanced training absent a legislative imperative. Because in my mind, someone who applies for a CCW is (generally) someone who takes their shooting seriously. They (again, generally) have a higher appreciation of the responsibility of what it means to be armed in public. That paints a picture of someone who at the very least spends a lot of time at the range improving their skills. But it also implies someone who is willing to improve those skills through professional instruction.

I never read any study / research that has that kind of data. In my life I spent a lot of time around different people with firearms, from Cops, Military, to the local redneck and i can say most non-professionals learned how to shoot from their friends and family and have very little formal training. Having said that, it doesn't mean they are unsafe or not good shooters (quite the opposite is true). I thing the NRA does an excellent job at promoting the 4 golden rules of gun safety which really helps. Also other shooters do a good job at "shameing" someone who is precieved at doing unsafe acts in the presence of others, which might be embarrassing for the person muzzle sweeping the firing line, but once shamed they will be more careful about it in the future.

There are studies out there that do show that CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than a non CCW holder.

tifosi77 wrote:I would like there to be a national registration for CCW. If an eligible citizen wishes to sign up for the program, you submit to a background check (a real one, like you take for federal employment), fingerprinting, 2-week wait period, mandatory successful completion of training of higher-than-basic level, the whole nine yards. But in return, that federal CCW means universal acceptance in the 50 states, and it also allows you to buy more exotic stuff that is ordinarily prohibited in most jurisdictions. I would sign up for that in a heartbeat.

This is a dream of mine too. If I want to voluntarily subject myself to higher standards let me do it. I'd also want to keep the NICS waiver we have in SC because if I already have a permit it's assumed I can buy a gun, but also add in approvals for bypassing ATF for supressors and SBR's, logg those onto the card itself along with training levels. And let me also bypass TSA security while we are at it

As far as training I've taken every NRA course offered except for muzzle loading and I'm certified to teach all but that and defense outside the home, but I have taken the course. Not only did I learn a ton in class room but we also spent a whole day at the range doing controlled simulations shooting behind cover, low light conditions and other things like that. It's really fun.

tifosi77 wrote:I would like to know if the data show whether or not CCW holders voluntarily take advanced training absent a legislative imperative. Because in my mind, someone who applies for a CCW is (generally) someone who takes their shooting seriously. They (again, generally) have a higher appreciation of the responsibility of what it means to be armed in public. That paints a picture of someone who at the very least spends a lot of time at the range improving their skills. But it also implies someone who is willing to improve those skills through professional instruction.

I never read any study / research that has that kind of data. In my life I spent a lot of time around different people with firearms, from Cops, Military, to the local redneck and i can say most non-professionals learned how to shoot from their friends and family and have very little formal training. Having said that, it doesn't mean they are unsafe or not good shooters (quite the opposite is true). I thing the NRA does an excellent job at promoting the 4 golden rules of gun safety which really helps. Also other shooters do a good job at "shameing" someone who is precieved at doing unsafe acts in the presence of others, which might be embarrassing for the person muzzle sweeping the firing line, but once shamed they will be more careful about it in the future.

There are studies out there that do show that CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than a non CCW holder.

Everything I have learned about shooting I have learned from friends and family at a range or on private property. I am probably safer at handling a firearm than some people who have an actual HQL in the state of MD but those people are allowed to purchase a gun and I am not unless I want to go through the agonizing process.

tifosi77 wrote:I would like to know if the data show whether or not CCW holders voluntarily take advanced training absent a legislative imperative. Because in my mind, someone who applies for a CCW is (generally) someone who takes their shooting seriously. They (again, generally) have a higher appreciation of the responsibility of what it means to be armed in public. That paints a picture of someone who at the very least spends a lot of time at the range improving their skills. But it also implies someone who is willing to improve those skills through professional instruction.

I never read any study / research that has that kind of data. In my life I spent a lot of time around different people with firearms, from Cops, Military, to the local redneck and i can say most non-professionals learned how to shoot from their friends and family and have very little formal training. Having said that, it doesn't mean they are unsafe or not good shooters (quite the opposite is true). I thing the NRA does an excellent job at promoting the 4 golden rules of gun safety which really helps. Also other shooters do a good job at "shameing" someone who is precieved at doing unsafe acts in the presence of others, which might be embarrassing for the person muzzle sweeping the firing line, but once shamed they will be more careful about it in the future.

There are studies out there that do show that CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than a non CCW holder.

Everything I have learned about shooting I have learned from friends and family at a range or on private property. I am probably safer at handling a firearm than some people who have an actual HQL in the state of MD but those people are allowed to purchase a gun and I am not unless I want to go through the agonizing process.

That is how I learned as well. Then I took classes to make me a more well rounded shooter. The classes I have taken didn't make me any safer, just closed my group size down and got me comfortable shooting from different positions.

If I'm honest, the bulk of the reason why I advocate mandatory training for CCW is because of the optics. It's like the stupid handgun safety test here in CA. It's like 25 multiple choice questions, and you only need to answer 18 of them correctly before you can buy a handgun. It serves no purpose other than mildly inconveniencing the would-be purchaser. But it looks like the legislature has done something.

One of the questions is "What is the safest direction to point a gun?" One of the multiple choices is 'north'. I'm not joking. Mrs Tif (who has no real interest in shooting beyond it being a fun way to spend time with her dad and stepmom when we go to Vegas) took the practice test and only missed two questions, one of which I also missed. (About open carry at a campsite on state parklands)

ffemtreed wrote:There are studies out there that do show that CCW holders are less likely to commit a crime than a non CCW holder.

The incidence of CCW holders committing a crime with a legally-owned firearm is so low that the FBI does not even track it as a data point for their Uniform Crime Report. You can only go by the number of CCWs that are revoked because the holder was convicted of a felony, and that number is sub-1%, the overwhelming majority of which are DUIs.

DelPen wrote:And let me also bypass TSA security while we are at it

Three birds! This is such a good idea. Which is why it will never come to pass.

DelPen wrote:As far as training I've taken every NRA course offered except for muzzle loading and I'm certified to teach all but that and defense outside the home, but I have taken the course. Not only did I learn a ton in class room but we also spent a whole day at the range doing controlled simulations shooting behind cover, low light conditions and other things like that. It's really fun.

Exactly. As a shooter, I don't understand why you would not want to take those classes. They're a ton a fun, you get to shoot a lot, seems like a win-win. It's not just about safety, it's about utility as well.

tifosi77 wrote:The incidence of CCW holders committing a crime with a legally-owned firearm is so low that the FBI does not even track it as a data point for their Uniform Crime Report. You can only go by the number of CCWs that are revoked because the holder was convicted of a felony, and that number is sub-1%, the overwhelming majority of which are DUIs.

The study I remember reading wasn't specific to firearm crimes, it was all crimes in general. The study showed that someone with a CCW was less likely to commit ANY crime than someone without a CCW by a significant margin. Violent crime was an even bigger margin. Yes its true that CCW committing violent crime is almost non existent that there is no substantial data to track.

Shooting instructor dies after girl accidentally shoots him in the head with an Uzi

An Arizona shooting instructor died after the 9-year-old girl he was teaching to use an Uzi accidentally shot him in the head, according to the Associated Press.

Charles Vacca, 39, was standing next to the girl Monday morning, offering instruction at a shooting range in White Hill, about an hour southeast of Las Vegas, authorities told Phoenix station KTVK.

Mohave County Sheriff Jim McCabe told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the girl had safely fired the gun many times when it was set in the “single-shot” mode. But then the gun was put into fully automatic mode, and that’s when it recoiled and fired off multiple rounds. The girl lost control of the gun as it went above her head, and she shot Vaca.